JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in this ease are aggrieved, firstly, by an order of the Sessions Judge directing a farther judicial enquiry, upon which the District Magistrate directed a specified Deputy Magistrate to hold that judicial enquiry; and secondly, by the further proceedings in which the Deputy Magistrate ignored both the orders of the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate and summoned the accused to answer charges which everybody who had looked into the matter at all had declared either to be largely exaggerated or wholly false as regards a number of the accused who have been summoned.
2. Two grounds are taken, firstly, that the order passed by the Sessions Judge was without notice to the accused and, secondly, that the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue summonses until a judicial enquiry ad had been made. The whole case law with regard to notice has been clearly and fully stated by our brother Jwala Prasad. It is sufficient for, us to say that the view, taken by the Full Bench in Calcutta in the case of Hari Dass Sanyal v. Saritulla was that in the case of a dismissal under Section 203 or Section 204(3) notice to the other side is not desirable. The other side has never yet had notice, the proceedings not having reached the stage of summoning them as accused persons and in this regard such oases are distinguishable from oases in which accused parsons have been tried and discharged, Action in contravention of that Full Bench decision should not, we respect fully think, have been taken without further reference to a Full Bench. We see no reason to refer this matter to a Fall Bench of this Court, for the reason that we accept the argument suggested by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court. It seems to us illogical that an accused should not be allowed to appear in proceedings under Section 202 (and this is the settled practice of this Court frequently and forcefully laid down) but that he should be allowed to appear in proceedings purporting to revise proceedings under Section 202 and that if under that Section the proceedings are continued, he should again be precluded from appearing, it seems to Us far better that until the accused has been brought before the Court either by summons or by warrant, he should not be allowed to come before the Court at all. The view taken in Sat Narain Tewari v. Emperor 32 C. 1085. 10 C.W.N. 51 : 3 Cr.L.J. 138, that a party who is not being tried for an offence is not an accused person is clearly the correct view.
3. As regards the merits of the learned Sessions Judge’s original order we feel that it, as framed by him and interpreted by the District Magistrate was a sound order. The Police had desired a further investigation and the complainant had prayed for a further investigation. We can see no objection to the form of the orders made by the heads of the district. We regard the proceedings of the Deputy Magistrate Mr. Kaviraj, as a defiance of the orders of his official superior. He should not have issued these summonses until he had made judicial enquiry, and we are of opinion that in toe circumstances of the case the issue of that summonses against all the accused was outside his powers. We, therefore, cancel the order instituting proceedings against the accused named by Mr. Kaviraj and direct that no summons or warrant be issued until a judicial enquiry has been made and a prima facie case disclosed against them.